Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"Giving up revenue" is not spending, comrade.
If anyone is self-centered, it's the base, covetous little looter, who makes the presumption that 100% of what his neighbor earns belongs to him.
I agree you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Tax cuts, done properly, help the economy grow. Growing economy = greater tax revenue
The Bush Tax Cuts have been in place for 10 years now. Where are all the jobs it was supposed to create? I mean, besides the 28 straight months of private sector under OBAMA's watch.
The economy was ok until Krugmans Housing Bubble popped. Did you miss that?
IOW, neither of you two drips can tell us specifically who these alleged "conservative" economists are, or how they got deemed to be "conservative"."Conservatives" as defined by whom?
According to the leftist fish wrap known as the New York Times, the squishy little rodent David Brooks qualifies as a "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore).
AHHAHAHAHA...He's looking for any way to ignore the information. Next he'll ask them to provide college records
Don't forget their birth certificates.
The rights response will be to claim that all 40 economists are bias, Obama Supporters or hate America
The Bush Tax Cuts have been in place for 10 years now. Where are all the jobs it was supposed to create? I mean, besides the 28 straight months of private sector under OBAMA's watch.
The economy was ok until Krugmans Housing Bubble popped. Did you miss that?
No, the economy was okay until Glass Steagall was repealed (honesty alert: The death knell being placed under Clinton), and speculative lending and derivatives fucked everything up. The housing bubble burst was part of that, but not the cause. If we had been able to tell big banks they couldn't rebundle GOVERNMENTAL debt in derivatives, this all would have been avoidable.
You should like, educate yourself or something.
You can't even get them to admit that tax cuts are no different than spending.
"Giving up revenue" is not spending, comrade.
If anyone is self-centered, it's the base, covetous little looter, who makes the presumption that 100% of what his neighbor earns belongs to him.
See you cannot explain how a willful decrease in revenue is not the same as a willful increase in spending, both have the same effect on the future deficit, it's why republicans are indeed economic retards.
You can't even get them to admit that tax cuts are no different than spending.
Only leftwing welfare-state lickspittles believe they are the same.
Anyone who thinks getting to keep your money is the same as having the government spend it is simply too stupid for words to adequately describe.
I know 80 economist that thinks the GOP is on the right track. that report is a lot like polls, who paid for it and what did they want it to say. Lets move on to something with some substance to it.
Did you IGNORE the part where they asked people across the political spectrum?
"Giving up revenue" is not spending, comrade.
If anyone is self-centered, it's the base, covetous little looter, who makes the presumption that 100% of what his neighbor earns belongs to him.
See you cannot explain how a willful decrease in revenue is not the same as a willful increase in spending, both have the same effect on the future deficit, it's why republicans are indeed economic retards.
Tax cuts dont decrease revenue.
Isn't it better to increase taxes when you increase spending?
The economy was ok until Krugmans Housing Bubble popped. Did you miss that?
No, the economy was okay until Glass Steagall was repealed (honesty alert: The death knell being placed under Clinton), and speculative lending and derivatives fucked everything up. The housing bubble burst was part of that, but not the cause. If we had been able to tell big banks they couldn't rebundle GOVERNMENTAL debt in derivatives, this all would have been avoidable.
You should like, educate yourself or something.
There's nothing wrong with people speculating with their own money. NOTHING AT ALL!
Sell short. Write puts. Buy exotic derivatives. Do whatever the fuck you want, just don't make the taxpayer liable for your fuck ups. If you win great, if you lose, tough shit
I know 80 economist that thinks the GOP is on the right track. that report is a lot like polls, who paid for it and what did they want it to say. Lets move on to something with some substance to it.
Did you IGNORE the part where they asked people across the political spectrum?
Where is the proof of that claim?
You can't even get them to admit that tax cuts are no different than spending.
Only leftwing welfare-state lickspittles believe they are the same.
Anyone who thinks getting to keep your money is the same as having the government spend it is simply too stupid for words to adequately describe.
Explain how they are different as far as the deficit is concerned or STFU.
Let me lay it out for ya Conservaderps...so you can ignore the logic and continue to spew crap....
A man is making 1000 a week. He and his wife and child live OK...not great...but nicely.
He loses his job and now is collecting 500 a week unemployment.
It is a struggle. No9 more dinners out..no more movie night...no more 1 week away at the shore.
A year of living this way and they are surviving...struggling....but surviving.....intermitant use of credit cards helps with the unexpected....like a refrigerator repair.
Now, thanks to stimulus...he gets a job making 650 a week. He is aware it is temporary becuase it is for a project...as most of the stimulus jobs were.
Now...what do you think he will do?
a) Take that extra 150 a week (above what he got on unemployment) and spend it on goodies
b) realize his job can end any day so he takes that 150 a week extra and pays off debt with 50 and puts the other 100 away for when he is back on the 500 a week unemployment
It was this exact premise as to why the GOP said the stiumulus would not work. They never said it would not help people get on a payrol. They said it will not stimulate the economy.
AND IT DIDNT.
Are you agreeing that tax cuts are indeed spending or are you saying that they are not?
I agree you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Tax cuts, done properly, help the economy grow. Growing economy = greater tax revenue
The Bush Tax Cuts have been in place for 10 years now. Where are all the jobs it was supposed to create? I mean, besides the 28 straight months of private sector under OBAMA's watch.
Let me lay it out for ya Conservaderps...so you can ignore the logic and continue to spew crap....
A man is making 1000 a week. He and his wife and child live OK...not great...but nicely.
He loses his job and now is collecting 500 a week unemployment.
It is a struggle. No9 more dinners out..no more movie night...no more 1 week away at the shore.
A year of living this way and they are surviving...struggling....but surviving.....intermitant use of credit cards helps with the unexpected....like a refrigerator repair.
Now, thanks to stimulus...he gets a job making 650 a week. He is aware it is temporary becuase it is for a project...as most of the stimulus jobs were.
Now...what do you think he will do?
a) Take that extra 150 a week (above what he got on unemployment) and spend it on goodies
b) realize his job can end any day so he takes that 150 a week extra and pays off debt with 50 and puts the other 100 away for when he is back on the 500 a week unemployment
It was this exact premise as to why the GOP said the stiumulus would not work. They never said it would not help people get on a payrol. They said it will not stimulate the economy.
AND IT DIDNT.
Ha ha ha ha. Oh fantasies. They're fun.
I agree you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Tax cuts, done properly, help the economy grow. Growing economy = greater tax revenue
The Bush Tax Cuts have been in place for 10 years now. Where are all the jobs it was supposed to create? I mean, besides the 28 straight months of private sector under OBAMA's watch.
Well let's see, if the stimulus gets to count anywhere from 1 - 9 billion jobs "created" or "saved" then why can't the same be applied to the Bush ear tax cuts?
"Giving up revenue" is not spending, comrade.
If anyone is self-centered, it's the base, covetous little looter, who makes the presumption that 100% of what his neighbor earns belongs to him.
See you cannot explain how a willful decrease in revenue is not the same as a willful increase in spending, both have the same effect on the future deficit, it's why republicans are indeed economic retards.
